中国临床心理学杂志

大五人格量表神经质分量表全式与简式的信效度比较

作者：席畅钟明天雷小霞刘莹凌宇蚁金瑶

单位：1. 中南大学湘雅二医院医学心理中心长沙 410011 2. 华南师范大学心理学院心理应用研究中心广州 510631 3. 湖南农业大学科学技术师范学院长沙 410128

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2017,25(3):453-456

摘要：

目的：比较大五人格量表（NEO Personality Inventory Revised，NEO-PI-R）神经质分量表（全式）和大五人格量表简版（NEO Five Factor Inventory，NEO-FFI）神经质分量表（简式）的信效度，并分别考察其跨性别测量等值性。方法：共有5352名在校大学生完成了神经质分量表全式和简式，以及流调中心用抑郁量表。考察量表的内部一致性，并采用Amos软件进行验证性因素分析以考察量表的构想效度和跨性别测量等值性。结果：神经质分量表全式的信度（Cronbach's α=0.92，M_IC=0.20）以及效度指标（GFI=0.93，CFI=0.91，RMSEA=0.056）均达到标准，并且在男女群组上严格等值（△CFI<0.01）。简式也表现出良好的信度（Cronbach's α=0.84，M_IC=0.31）和效度（GFI=0.96，CFI=0.93，RMSEA=0.067），但在男女群组上只实现部分等值性（严格等值模型中△CFI>0.01）。结论：神经质分量表全式和简式均具有良好的信效度，但是全式呈现出更好的跨性别测量等值性。

Objective: To compare the reliability and validity of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO Personality Inventory Revised(NEO-PI-R) with the neuroticism subscale of the NEO Five Factor Inventory(NEO-FFI), and examine their measurement equivalence across gender. Methods: A total of 5352 undergraduates completed the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI-R, the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Cronbach's alpha coefficient and mean inter-item correlation(M_IC) were calculated to test the internal consistency reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) were used by Amos to test the theory-based validity and the measurement equivalence across gender respectively. Results: The internal consistency reliability(Cronbach's alpha=0.92, M_IC=0.20) and theory-based validity(GFI=0.93, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.056) of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI-R met the standards, which also existed strict measurement equivalence across gender(△CFI<0.01). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.84, M_IC=0.31) and theory-based validity(GFI=0.96, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.067)of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI met the standards, while which existed partial measurement equivalence in the strict model(△ CFI>0.01). Conclusion: The neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI-R and that of the NEO-FFI both showed adequate reliability and validity, while the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI-R had better measurement equivalence across gender.

基金项目：

国家自然科学基金（81370034）

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 Eysenck HE, Eysenck MW. Personality and individual differences:A natural science approach. Emotions & Beliefs, 1985, 19(3):269-273
2 Jr PTC, Mccrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality & Individual Differences, 1992, 13(6):653-665
3 Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 1993, 48(1):26
4 Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS. The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders:A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 2005, 27(2):101-114
5 McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 1997, 52(5):509-516
6 Widiger T. Official classification systems. Livesley W, editor. New York:Guilford Press, 2001
7 Kayi? AR, Satici SA, Yilmaz MF, et al. Big five-personality trait and internet addiction:A meta-analytic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 63:35-40
8 Barford KA, Smillie LD. Openness and other Big Five traits in relation to dispositional mixed emotions. Personality & Individual Differences, 2016, 102:118-122
9 van Dijk SD, Hanssen D, Naarding P, et al. Big Five personality traits and medically unexplained symptoms in later life. Eur Psychiatry, 2015, 38(3):23-30
10 Mccrae RR, Jr CP. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1987, 52(1):81-90
11 Costa P Jr, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL, 1992
12 John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. Handbook of personality:Theory and research. Guilford Press, 2010
13 戴晓阳,吴依泉. NEO-PI-R在16~20岁人群中的应用研究. 中国临床心理学杂志,2005,13(1):14-18
14 姚若松,梁乐瑶. 大五人格量表简化版(NEO-FFI)在大学生人群的应用分析. 中国临床心理学杂志,2010,18(4):457-459
15 Costa PT Jr, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:Robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2001, 81(2):322-331
16 Terracciano A. The Italian version of the NEO PI-R:Conceptual and empirical support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality & Individual Differences, 2003, 35(8):1859-1872
17 Grossman M, Wood W. Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience:A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, 65(5):1010-1022
18 French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 2006, 13(3):378-402
19 戴晓阳,姚淑桥,蔡太生,等. NEO个性问卷修订本在中国的应用研究. 中国心理卫生杂志,2004,18(3):170-171
20 章婕,吴振云,方格,等. 流调中心抑郁量表全国城市常模的建立. 中国心理卫生杂志,2010,24(2):139-143
21 Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing equation model fit. Newbury Park:Sage, 1993. 136-162
22 Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999, 6(1):1-55
23 Jöreskog KG. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 1971, 36(4):409-426
24 Chen FF, Sousa KH, West SG. Teacher's corner:Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2005, 12(3):471-492
25 Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2002, 9(2):233-255
26 Widaman KF, Reise SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments:Applications in the substance use domain. American Psychological Association, 1997

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】